Hi everyone, On Thursday 05 August 2010 David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:22 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote: > > Now, I would like to know how we should deal with the issue. We (the > > evolution-kolab developers) could patch the 2.30 version of IMAPX only to > > get things running. In this case, would our additions be pulled > > upstream? > [...] > I would strongly recommend that you do it in the development branch > first, then we can backport it to gnome-2-30. > I've been backporting most IMAPX changes from master to the 2.30 branch; > I see no particular reason why we shouldn't backport METADATA support > too, as long as you're careful not to add new user-visible strings that > would need translation.
Okay, let's say, we will patch upstream IMAPX to support RFC5464. The patch gets reviewed, and after being polished it will (hopefully :-) be accepted in upstream. How long do you think it would take you to backport such a patch to 2.30, assuming we heed to the aforementioned implementation recommendations? Best regards, Christian -- kernel concepts GbR Tel: +49-271-771091-14 Sieghuetter Hauptweg 48 Fax: +49-271-771091-19 D-57072 Siegen http://www.kernelconcepts.de/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers